Yesterday, reacting to the botched lethal-injection execution of an Arizona murderer, I said: “Bring Back the Firing Squad. . . . It was good enough for Gary Gilmore.” And most people probably thought, “Hahaha. Stacy’s just being sarcastic again.” Well, guess what? A federal appeals court judge had made basically the same argument:
“Using drugs meant for individuals with medical needs to carry out executions is a misguided effort to mask the brutality of executions by making them look serene and beautiful — like something any one of us might experience in our final moments,” U.S. 9th Circuit Court Chief Judge Alex Kozinski wrote in a dissent in the Arizona death penalty case of Joseph Rudolph Wood III.
“But executions are, in fact, brutal, savage events, and nothing the state tries to do can mask that reality. Nor should we. If we as a society want to carry out executions, we should be willing to face the fact that the state is committing a horrendous brutality on our behalf.” . . .
His dissent could be read as much as an indictment of capital punishment as a call for harsher methods, however. He cited California’s inability to execute anyone since 2006 because of legal challenges.
“Old age, not execution, is the most serious risk factor for inmates at the San Quentin death row,” he wrote.
In calling for firing squads, Kozinski said, “Eight or 10 large-caliber rifle bullets fired at close range can inflict massive damage, causing instant death every time.”
He said the public should not shield itself “from the reality we are shedding human blood.”
“If we as a society cannot stomach the splatter from an execution carried out by a firing squad, then we shouldn’t be carrying out executions at all.”
Kozinski, a Ronald Reagan appointee, is known for writing audacious, thought-provoking rulings, and legal scholars have been poring over his dissent.
Read the whole thing. My attitude about the death penalty is basically the same as my attitude about war: Git ‘er done.
A hard war makes for a long peace. War by half-measures, hemmed in by political concerns and fears of offending delicate sensibilities, can never accomplish war’s purpose, i.e., to defeat the enemy and force his submission. We ought not deceive ourselves about what war is.
Like the man said, “Talk thus to the marines.”
If we are not prepared to destroy the enemy — to devastate him with the utmost in lethal force — we ought never go to war. If our cause is so just that we will risk the blood of our bravest sons to conquer a foe, it does not behoove us to be too sensitive about the blood of our enemies. A nation that is afraid of war is a decadent nation, and will ultimately be conquered by others.
Similarly, we must not deceive ourselves about the death penalty. It is “humane” only in the sense that it is necessary to protect the innocent from the depredations of savages. Joseph Woods shot to death 55-year-old Gene Dietz, the father of his ex-girlfriend. As Debbie Dietz frantically tried to telephone for help, Woods grabbed her by the neck and said: “I told you I was going to do it. . . . I have to kill you, bitch.” And then he shot her to death, too.
You want to tell me Joseph Woods deserved a humane death? You want to tell me that a firing squad — or the noose, the gas chamber or the electric chair — would be a violation of the killer’s “rights”? You are siding with savages against the innocent.
If you want to descend to the same level as a savage I suppose it’s no big deal? He’s already in prison, so justice has been done and the innocent are protected. There is no argument for capital punishment unless the argument is for revenge alone. I always wonder how Christians square their beliefs with being pro-death penalty? at least Catholics got it right and realize it’s against their faith, especially since their Savior was himself, executed
How about we end executions, pre and post natal? Deal?
When someone puts down a rabid animal, is that revenge?
[…] TOM: Executions are brutal savage events… […]
… He’s already in prison, so justice has been done and the innocent are protected. …
What a crock …
Bing ‘ordered hit from prison’ and get back with us …
Just common sense, but enoughofthat is just a troll entity (I have not checked but I am going to guess his account is new).
at least Catholics got it right and realize it’s against their faith, especially since their Savior was himself, executed
Um, no. John Paul II had personal preferences on this question. It’s not part of the Magisterium. Catholics are free to advocate capital sentences and do.
Avery Cardinal Dulles explains how Sacred Scripture buttresses the franchise the civil government has to execute people here.
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2001/04/catholicism-amp-capital-punishment
—
Again, the equation of capital sentences with abortion is asinine. Every one sentenced in this country has had extensive legal process. Unborn children are innocent. Convicts are not.
Oh , I see. we need the death penalty to stop imprisoned gang bosses from putting out hits on their rivals from prison. lol! anyway, this guy was locked for life. not a gang boss, and no threat to the public. if the prison system isn’t justice, nor a deterrent then what use is it?
EnoughofThat is a troll and is disingenuous. They are all for banning the death penalty for murderous felons, but not for innocent babies.
Yeah, common sense dictates that we act like a third world nation, and pursue policies with no practical benefit to anyone. Even from a fiscal perspective death rom, and executions cost far more than housing a prisoner for life.
yeah, a state execution is the same as aborting a fetus. Sorry, well not really, but you’re an idiot.
Wrong. The Church is against the death penalty. It’s wasn’t only the Pope, but also the Bishops, and clergy. it’s the same reason the Church is essentially anti- war.
I agree. I am not enthusiastic about the death penalty, but I believe it is needed, and pretending it’s not a brutal act is foolish.
Only an idiot equates capital punishment with abortion, and the mother with a murderous felon. Pathetic.
“…descend to the same level as a savage…”
False dichotomy. Pretending we are too civilized to execute people makes us weak; see the comments about war above.
“…justice has been done and the innocent protected…”
The murderer’s continued existence is an ongoing crime. Death penalty is reserved for crimes so heinous that it shocks the community. Paying for the criminal’s upkeep is yet another crime against the community.
“I always wonder how Christians square their beliefs with being pro-death penalty?”
I always wonder how the pro-choice crowd can be so cavalier about killing babies, but so concerned about convicted killers. And as Jesus said, “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, render unto God that which is God’s.” That means, religion should not interfere with the business of the state.
Again…
Criminals: guilty.
Babies: innocent.
Even from a fiscal perspective death rom, and executions cost far more than housing a prisoner for life.
The median lapse of time from conviction to execution is 9 years. I don’t think the legal fees are going to eat up 35 or 40 years worth of 24 hour care in state prisons.
You’re political allies made legal procedure hopelessly rococo and then complain it’s too expensive.
That’s textbook chutzpah.
The Church lives in a fantasy world, or at least a world of aspirations. We who live in the real world need to make tougher choices.
Are you advocating that we should live in a theocracy?
You’re right: abortion is MUCH WORSE.
The babies cannot have been guilty of anything.
The criminals were given due process and found guilty.
You’re not understanding the distinction between the Church’s defined doctrine, the Church’s disciplines, and the opinions of ordinaries. Bishops say much that is not binding on their flock.
Until you do, you should not comment on the Church’s teaching. You’re beclowning yourself to someone minimally informed.
The demand for “Humane” executions isn’t to protect prisoners, it’s to protect ourselves. History has shown the savagery of mobs and the corrupting effect power, especially the power to inflict pain, has on people and societies. Making the condemned suffer before death is about the audience, about giving them a show and allowing them to feed off the condemned’s pain.
When you put down a rabid dog, you do it quickly and humanely out of respect for the life in general. Someone who chose to do it slowly, to draw out the suffering of the animal, we would call that man a monster. Likewise, whatever the method of execution, we it should be done quickly and with the minimal amount of pain and suffering.
It’s done because we must, not because we like to.
You’re both confused about the status of these teachings.
Bishop’s conferences say much that is ill-advised. That’s all it is. It’s not fantastical.
“Lol?!?”
Either you think this is funny, or you’re 12 years old.
Anyway, execution is a societal statement of moral absolutes. That is its main purpose.
“Third world nation?”
That sounds very ethnocentric, comrade. You got something against brown people?
The lapse is so long, of course, because liberals keep sabotaging the system with their legal appeals.
Because liberals are traitors to this country.
You know, if you just take aside some of the men called in for jury duty one day, hand half of them rifles loaded with bullets and half loaded with blanks, march the prisoner out to the public square and shoot him there when the sheriff lowers his sword and do this without any antecedent publicity you will have a minimal audience and dispatch him in short order.
Are you advocating that we should live in a theocracy?
I wasn’t aware that the framers had included the Church as the 4th branch of government. Who gives a shit what the Church has to say in state matters?
common sense dictates that we act like a third world nation,
I do not know what you have against 3d world nations. Every country in the world was once poor. That aside, the world’s vanguard economies routinely executed people prior to 1960. They did not grow more ‘advanced’ after that date, because such ‘advancement’ was a fantasy of H.G. Wells and the like. Like any human society, we suffer unpredictable cycles of corruption and reform. We grew more silly after 1960, which happens.
Are you going to continue to utter non sequiturs?
1) It is not a non-sequitur, as it poses a valid and related question.
2) Are you going to answer the question?
In the context of mundane political life, they advocate positions just like anyone else. If you’re not concerned with intramural matters of the Church’s operations (I am, but that’s another issue), I cannot see why it bothers you. The Church advocates things, the Bar Association advocates things, the AAUP advocates things, the Chamber of Commerce advocates things…
“Git ‘er done.”
Yes! Indeed!
Much of the drive to end capital punishment has to do with softheaded people that are unwilling to accept what is required of an adult. I do understand the problems caused by Police and Prosecutors who misbehave and if it is discovered that they did so, then they should go to the wall, but we must maintain capital punishment if we are pro-life. Only death is a suitable answer to those who commit murder.
Flogging Christians with their faith, huh? Making people feel guilty about their beliefs that you may or may not share (and your post more than implies you do NOT) is not an effective argument.
In fact, it’s intellectually dishonest. And a hallmark of the Left. You could have cut your post in half, and would have been far more effective.
Still weak, but at least more honest.
Any thinking adult that says they are enthusiastic about it is not a thinking adult.
Christ was not executed. He was murdered. Just because the Roman Governor carried it out does not make it an execution.
Only one of those groups represents a formal religion.
There is no Establishment Clause in the Constitution against the union of “Bar and State,” nor “Business and State.”
Both are state sanctioned killings. One is performed by a government employee, the other through government support, including funded. The main difference is that murderers get a trial first.
God charged the state with carrying out executions. When a person who says they are Christian stands against capital punishment they are standing against the command of God who said when “man sheds the blood of man, then by man shall his blood be shed.” It doesn’t get any clearer or pointed than that.
It is not a valid question. Bishops are not public officials even in a ceremonial way. Other than the prince-bishoprics in and among the German states prior to 1806 and in the Papal States in central Italy, they never have been in the occidental Church. In the East, the problem has been quite the opposite, the subordiation of ecclesiastics to monarchs.
The closest you’d get to a theocratic arrangement on American soil might have been found in Puritan Massachusetts. Been a while since then (and did not implicate episcopates of any kind).
So I cannot figure what the shizz about ‘theocracy’ is with you, unless you fancy the term is to be used when ever a clergyman opens his mouth about a matter of political contention.
I didn’t realize we were still in the colonial era? The United States criminal justice system gets it wrong. We have the death penalty, hand out some of the longest sentences in the civilized world, our prisons are some of the most violent, and yet we have more people locked up than any other country and high recidivism rates? If you don’t think we’re doing something then you’re not using your head.
See the point I made about what God had to say after the flood about capital punishment. God ordered it.
What you are saying, in the end, that as a Christian I have no right to advocate for something simply because it is in the realm of governance. The church/state separation issue is not in the constitution, nor does it make Christians second class citizens because they disagree with something government proposes.
Actually, his notion that this is Church teaching is in error, so he’s not flogging anyone outside his imagination.
If you can show that the USA was a theocracy ca 1790, then you have a case. Otherwise you’re simply being a clown.
Let me explain it to you:
– You have relied upon the supposed authority of the Church to support your argument.
– I have questioned the appropriateness of involving the Church in state matters. The outcome of such an involvement would be the establishment of a theocracy in the U.S.: laws used to support Church teachings first and foremost.
*That* is why the question is relevant.
Even if I did not think you were trading in a mess of factoids, your remarks are not responsive to my comment or derived from your original comment.
Who the hell are you even responding to? You’ve answered your own post 3 times here.
There’s no comparison between war, and the need for a death penalty. The perpetrator is already locked up, and no longer any threat to the community. justice has been served, and the threat neutralized. Oh, man, now of course we jump to “baby killing”…there’s no comparison there either, and I’m not going to explain why. That should be self evident, but to put it in sime terms the fetus, or embryo is not a person, and the mother is aborting out of malice. It’s about intent, and that’s what establishes murder.
Actually, I was merely commenting on his insistence (which is false) that the Church has condemned capital sentences and imposed its views on its flock. Reading comprehension chum, its great stuff.
I cannot see how taking bishops as an authority is any more ‘enslaving’ than looking to any other authority on questions normative.
The word ‘theocracy’ does not mean what you think it means.
I thought he said turn the other cheek, and thou shall not kill? Well, one shouldn’t expect consistency from organized religion.